BUT I AM NOT GOING TO START BY ASSUMING HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS RACIAL IDENTITY UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE IN THE CONVERSATION LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Well I think people are mainly saying that you shouldn't assume much of anything either way. Within the context of religions I think the idea is that you don't assume that they hold any beliefs that you might personally associate with that religion.

When someone says " I'm X" all you can really derive from such a statement is that they identify as X. All other things are an assumption. Now, assumptions can be justified based on context but well...that's context. Considering that there are places you might be ostracized or at least made to feel uncomfortable for expressing an identity not in line with a particular set, I don't even think you draw the " identifies as X" thing. Context just ain't that easy.

In fact, I think one of the main problems here is that you're assuming that other people are coming from a comparable place. Like, they would only identify as christian for the same reason that you might identify as christian. But people might identify as christian for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with their belief in a higher power. For example, one might identify as christian because they've only fallen out of faith very recently, they might still be associated with the church or have a family that identifies as such or they could be trying to salvage whatever aspects of the religion they can still identify a little with.

Everyone has a reason for identifying as something. Even reasons that you wouldn't personally have._________________

everything you have told me that defines the jews as a race goes back to a religious belief. if i don't think the religious belief has any rational grounding, why do i then have to accept AS REAL all of the things that flow from that original viewpoint?

While the definition does come from a religious place, it is not itself much of one. It is a culture. It is not racial, any more than any identification with the culture of your parents/grandparents and further is racial.

Yeah actually, that's it. It's just an identification with a culture. It's a culture that debates about whether or not they actually have the land they came from, sure, but it's still a culture like any other culture. Why should being a Jew be any different from being a Mexican? Or 1/16th German or whatever the fuck you identify with?_________________

BUT I AM NOT GOING TO START BY ASSUMING HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS RACIAL IDENTITY UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE IN THE CONVERSATION LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Well I think people are mainly saying that you shouldn't assume much of anything either way. Within the context of religions I think the idea is that you don't assume that they hold any beliefs that you might personally associate with that religion.

On a practical and colloquial level (to avoid any more discussion of religious scholars), this sounds useless. You can never assume that anyone who claims to be a member of a religion holds any specific tenets of that religion? I'm happy to hold ideas provisionally and change them as I learn new information, but there's no reason to use labels if they don't mean something. That would be like saying you can't assume what's inside a soup can by what's on the label outside. Maybe it's soup, but maybe it's a sandwich. Maybe it's low sodium, but maybe it's actually double sodium. That's useless. That's the reason we have labels.

If someone tells me they're a Christian I assume they believe in God, that they believe Jesus was the son of God, and that they hold the Bible in some reverence. Because that's a pretty good average of teachings across all denominations. And that's what generic labels are for (as opposed to "Episcopalian," which would add more generic assumptions), to give us a frame of reference, a schema, or a script about what to expect and how to act in a given situation. If you choose to call yourself by a religious label and deny the tenets of that religion that's cool. You'll just spend a lot of time explaining to people what you really meant by it._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

ok, i shouldn't have called yrvani a nazi, however irritating she was. i would still like to see someone demonstrate how the logical basis for the comparison was faulty (other than the fact that it involved nazis, which apparently makes people utterly ignore anything you've actually said).

BUT I AM NOT GOING TO START BY ASSUMING HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS RACIAL IDENTITY UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE IN THE CONVERSATION LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Well I think people are mainly saying that you shouldn't assume much of anything either way. Within the context of religions I think the idea is that you don't assume that they hold any beliefs that you might personally associate with that religion.

On a practical and colloquial level (to avoid any more discussion of religious scholars), this sounds useless. You can never assume that anyone who claims to be a member of a religion holds any specific tenets of that religion? I'm happy to hold ideas provisionally and change them as I learn new information, but there's no reason to use labels if they don't mean something. That would be like saying you can't assume what's inside a soup can by what's on the label outside. Maybe it's soup, but maybe it's a sandwich. Maybe it's low sodium, but maybe it's actually double sodium. That's useless. That's the reason we have labels.

If someone tells me they're a Christian I assume they believe in God, that they believe Jesus was the son of God, and that they hold the Bible in some reverence. Because that's a pretty good average of teachings across all denominations. And that's what generic labels are for (as opposed to "Episcopalian," which would add more generic assumptions), to give us a frame of reference, a schema, or a script about what to expect and how to act in a given situation. If you choose to call yourself by a religious label and deny the tenets of that religion that's cool. You'll just spend a lot of time explaining to people what you really meant by it.

BUT I AM NOT GOING TO START BY ASSUMING HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS RACIAL IDENTITY UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE IN THE CONVERSATION LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

On a practical and colloquial level (to avoid any more discussion of religious scholars), this sounds useless. You can never assume that anyone who claims to be a member of a religion holds any specific tenets of that religion? I'm happy to hold ideas provisionally and change them as I learn new information, but there's no reason to use labels if they don't mean something. That would be like saying you can't assume what's inside a soup can by what's on the label outside. Maybe it's soup, but maybe it's a sandwich. Maybe it's low sodium, but maybe it's actually double sodium. That's useless. That's the reason we have labels.

If someone tells me they're a Christian I assume they believe in God, that they believe Jesus was the son of God, and that they hold the Bible in some reverence. Because that's a pretty good average of teachings across all denominations. And that's what generic labels are for (as opposed to "Episcopalian," which would add more generic assumptions), to give us a frame of reference, a schema, or a script about what to expect and how to act in a given situation. If you choose to call yourself by a religious label and deny the tenets of that religion that's cool. You'll just spend a lot of time explaining to people what you really meant by it.

This would be a valid point if agnostic christians weren't a big thing, but instead was a group of some newfangled, tinsy tiny minority thing in one city somewhere. Your ignorance of the matter doesn't make it so._________________\m/

ok, i shouldn't have called yrvani a nazi, however irritating she was. i would still like to see someone demonstrate how the logical basis for the comparison was faulty (other than the fact that it involved nazis, which apparently makes people utterly ignore anything you've actually said).

Apology accepted.

Hmm, not sure there was really an apology directed at you in there, but ten points for smugness!_________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

BUT I AM NOT GOING TO START BY ASSUMING HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS RACIAL IDENTITY UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE IN THE CONVERSATION LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

On a practical and colloquial level (to avoid any more discussion of religious scholars), this sounds useless. You can never assume that anyone who claims to be a member of a religion holds any specific tenets of that religion? I'm happy to hold ideas provisionally and change them as I learn new information, but there's no reason to use labels if they don't mean something. That would be like saying you can't assume what's inside a soup can by what's on the label outside. Maybe it's soup, but maybe it's a sandwich. Maybe it's low sodium, but maybe it's actually double sodium. That's useless. That's the reason we have labels.

If someone tells me they're a Christian I assume they believe in God, that they believe Jesus was the son of God, and that they hold the Bible in some reverence. Because that's a pretty good average of teachings across all denominations. And that's what generic labels are for (as opposed to "Episcopalian," which would add more generic assumptions), to give us a frame of reference, a schema, or a script about what to expect and how to act in a given situation. If you choose to call yourself by a religious label and deny the tenets of that religion that's cool. You'll just spend a lot of time explaining to people what you really meant by it.

This would be a valid point if agnostic christians weren't a big thing, but instead was a group of some newfangled, tinsy tiny minority thing in one city somewhere. Your ignorance of the matter doesn't make it so.

I was raised Christian, I consider myself Agnostic, but I would never call myself an 'agnostic christian'. You can't be ________ Christian or Christian _________, Christianity doesn't work that way. If someone tells me that they are an agnostic christian my assumptions would be "they don't really know what they're talking about" and I'd try to change the conversation or otherwise bail out of there as quickly as possible._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/https://twitter.com/oadrake

Only half? Christ on a bike, I'm going to have to work on that._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

On a practical and colloquial level (to avoid any more discussion of religious scholars), this sounds useless. You can never assume that anyone who claims to be a member of a religion holds any specific tenets of that religion? I'm happy to hold ideas provisionally and change them as I learn new information, but there's no reason to use labels if they don't mean something. That would be like saying you can't assume what's inside a soup can by what's on the label outside. Maybe it's soup, but maybe it's a sandwich. Maybe it's low sodium, but maybe it's actually double sodium. That's useless. That's the reason we have labels.

If someone tells me they're a Christian I assume they believe in God, that they believe Jesus was the son of God, and that they hold the Bible in some reverence. Because that's a pretty good average of teachings across all denominations. And that's what generic labels are for (as opposed to "Episcopalian," which would add more generic assumptions), to give us a frame of reference, a schema, or a script about what to expect and how to act in a given situation. If you choose to call yourself by a religious label and deny the tenets of that religion that's cool. You'll just spend a lot of time explaining to people what you really meant by it.

This would be a valid point if agnostic christians weren't a big thing, but instead was a group of some newfangled, tinsy tiny minority thing in one city somewhere. Your ignorance of the matter doesn't make it so.

My ignorance on the matter also doesn't change the teachings of the Christian religion or its denominations. The acceptance of the existence of God is a central tenet in all of them, period. But then, that wasn't my point, was it? My point was that labels like "Christian" are only useful if they have a meaning.

On a more personal note, are you condescending about everything, or just religion? Far be it from me to mock anyone for being a know-it-all (that would be ironic), but I just wanted to find out if it was a general personality trait or if this topic is particularly important to you. If it's a general personality trait I'll save myself the grief and just ignore you._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

You were quoting the jew scholars. Let's hear now what the christian scholars says about who is a christian or not

All the branches of christianism have a special pray "the creed", and in every important mass of the year and in all the others at will of the priest the creed is gonna be prayed.

At some point of the mass, the priest says "Let's pray the proffesion of our Faith" and the community is going to pray it. Leet's see which is the first sentence of the creed in all the flavours of creeds:

Quote:

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.*

This is really easy: If you don't pray the first two or three lines of creed, you are not christian, because the creed is the way of identify oneself in the maremagnum of christian beliefs. Is also interesant to read all the variations to see the subtle changes between branches.

Of course exists christian music, art, literature, studies and universities. But if you are going to call "christian", you should pray at least one creed. And all start the same way "I believe in God".

All the branches of christianism have a special pray "the creed", and in every important mass of the year and in all the others at will of the priest the creed is gonna be prayed.

While the Apostles' Creed is probably the most well known creed, it's by no means the only one, nor is it the oldest. Not all denominations use it liturgically, and many denominations use the Nicene Creed instead (as the Apostles' Creed was not produced by a church council). The Eastern Orthodox church do not use the Apostles' Creed at all, AFAIK. On that basis alone, you can't really use the Apostles' Creed as a measure of all Christianity, only Western Christianity.

Quote:

At some point of the mass, the priest says "Let's pray the proffesion of our Faith" and the community is going to pray it. Leet's see which is the first sentence of the creed in all the flavours of creeds:

Quote:
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.*

Actually, the Chalcedonian Creed begins, "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ..."

Quote:

This is really easy: If you don't pray the first two or three lines of creed, you are not christian, because the creed is the way of identify oneself in the maremagnum of christian beliefs. Is also interesant to read all the variations to see the subtle changes between branches.

Of course exists christian music, art, literature, studies and universities. But if you are going to call "christian", you should pray at least one creed. And all start the same way "I believe in God".

It's not easy. Which Creed should be authoritative? None of the Creeds are flawless, nor do any of them contain a perfect summary of Christian doctrine. Belief in God does not make you a christian - it makes you a theist. The label has been applied so diversely that it is tremendously difficult to come up with a definition that reflects that diversity while still being useful as a separate category of belief, without excluding some of those groups who apply the label to themselves while being an outlier theologically (Christian Atheism, for example).

Yrvani wrote:

his would be a valid point if agnostic christians weren't a big thing, but instead was a group of some newfangled, tinsy tiny minority thing in one city somewhere. Your ignorance of the matter doesn't make it so.

I'm baffled by this whole aspect of "Christian agnosticism". It seems like it is either a minority group, or a very broad label being applied to various kinds of modern theology (Christian existentialsim, Postliberal theology, neo-orthodoxy, radical orthodoxy, etc), many of which would not self-describe as agnostic. You may be describing Unitarian Universalism, which cannot accurately be described as Christian. Unless you are simply describing those people who are nominally Christian (baptised, go to church maybe once a year) but don't have a strong belief about anything in particular?_________________The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither

his would be a valid point if agnostic christians weren't a big thing, but instead was a group of some newfangled, tinsy tiny minority thing in one city somewhere. Your ignorance of the matter doesn't make it so.

I'm baffled by this whole aspect of "Christian agnosticism". It seems like it is either a minority group, or a very broad label being applied to various kinds of modern theology (Christian existentialsim, Postliberal theology, neo-orthodoxy, radical orthodoxy, etc), many of which would not self-describe as agnostic. You may be describing Unitarian Universalism, which cannot accurately be described as Christian. Unless you are simply describing those people who are nominally Christian (baptised, go to church maybe once a year) but don't have a strong belief about anything in particular?

Ok, so from reading the wiki article on 'agnostic theist', the last paragraph says this:

Quote:

Christian Agnostics (distinct from a Christian who is agnostic) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God exists, that Jesus has a special relationship with him and is in some way divine, and that God should be worshiped. This belief system has deep roots in Judaism and the early days of the Church.

Thanks for your reply, Vox. You know what are you talking. Never heard about the Chalcedonian Creed, thanks for that piece of information. I stand corrected now: Not all the creeds starts with the "I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth"

Still, I hope that you concurr with me that the most important part of any creed is the belief in God and Christ. And historically, the Creed purpose is to summarize the beliefs that defines a christian church, even a middle asian christian church, they still uses their own creed to set the differencies between other churchs. As everyone in the west does.

More things:

Vox Raucus wrote:

Belief in God does not make you a christian - it makes you a theist.

I dissent here. Belief in god makes you a theist. Belief in God, capital G like a personal noun, makes you a christian. Jehova's Witnesses are the only ones that uses a variation of the tetragrammaton as personal noun of the christian god (low case letter here)

Vox Raucus wrote:

It's not easy. Which Creed should be authoritative? None of the Creeds are flawless, nor do any of them contain a perfect summary of Christian doctrine.

And I am not saying that. Is fun to read each creed to see the differences between branches of christianism. But you also can see what all they have in common: The belief in God and in Christ. They can theorize about the relevance of Mary, or the saints and other factors, but the tree where all branches depart is this: There is only one god, God, and there is his only son, Christ.

If you don't believe about the sanctity of Mary you may be a lutheran, but if you don't believe in God I am pretty sure that you are not a christian.

For example, my personal stance: I am atheist. A hard-line one. Still I think that most of the teachings of Jesus (to love each other, compassion, patience, hope...) are a well way-to-go.

In fact: I Love most of the sacred music composed in between S. XVII and XIX. I Love the paintings of the Italian Renaissance, and their sculptures (La PietŠ of Michellangelo is my favorite piece of art, any kind of art). I can say that I love the artsy side of christian culture (in a selected piece of time)

Makes me that a christian? Of course not. I don't believe in God nor the meta-human side of Jesus._________________Be mellow
Be compassionate